Kerala HC Refuses Separate Trial, Charge Modification in Rape Prosecution

A single-judge bench of Justice G. Girish heard petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the fourth accused in S.C. No. 366/2012, challenging the Sessions Court, Alappuzha order dated 11.12.2018 which refused a separate trial and declined to alter the court charge. The petitions (Crl.M.C. Nos. 8624/2018 and 8835/2018) arose from a criminal prosecution relating to alleged serial sexual offences against a girl below 16 years of age.

The High Court dismissed both petitions and upheld the Sessions Judge’s decision to try the fourth accused jointly with the other accused. The court held that the allegations against the petitioner were “inseparably linked” to the acts attributed to the other accused and arose from the “same transaction”, and that joint trial would not cause prejudice. 

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The aforesaid aspects revealed from the prosecution records would make it clear that the criminal acts committed by the petitioner are inseparably linked to the criminal acts attributed against the other accused in this case. So also, it is apparent that the criminal acts attributed against the petitioner are committed in the course of the same transaction in which the victim girl was subjected to sexual exploitation by the other accused. That being so, there is absolutely no legal infirmity in the decision of the learned Sessions Judge to conduct the trial of the case against the petitioner jointly with the trial of the case against the other accused. It cannot be said that the aforesaid procedure would cause any prejudice to the petitioner.” The court further noted that “it is well within the ambit of powers of the learned Sessions Judge to alter the charge at any time before the judgment is pronounced, in exercise of his powers under Section 216 Cr.P.C,” and observed that the petitioner’s contentions were “prima facie unsustainable.”

Background
The prosecution alleged that between August and October 2010 a number of accused subjected a girl, belonging to the Scheduled Caste community and said to be under 16 years, to serial sexual exploitation. Accused Nos.1–4 were alleged to have procured and induced the victim to various places and facilitated her sexual exploitation by accused Nos.5–8, with accused No.9 alleged to have outraged her modesty and accused No.10 alleged to have provided premises for the offences. The final report and charge sheet included offences under Sections 366A and 109 read with Sections 354 and 376 IPC; allegations of monetary gain and a planned scheme to exploit the victim were recorded in the prosecution case.

The petitioner (4th accused) moved the Sessions Court by Crl.M.P. No. 7278/2018 for a separate trial, contending that joint trial with other accused would cause prejudice and that certain provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act could not be charged against her in view of her caste. The Sessions Judge dismissed the application on 11.12.2018 and framed charges against accused Nos.2 to 10. The petitioner then approached the High Court seeking modification of the charge and separate proceedings; she also relied on an earlier clubbing of proceedings (S.C. No. 308/2012) and sought protection from prejudice.

After hearing counsel for both sides, the High Court found the petitioner’s pleas lacking in merit. The court recorded that the prosecution material showed specific acts by the petitioner — including inducing the minor and facilitating occasions at the house where she resided and allegedly abetting an outrage of modesty — that were factually and legally linked to the offences attributed to others. The court pointed out that the Sessions Judge had not attributed offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act to the petitioner and therefore that particular contention was “devoid of any legal basis.” The petitions were dismissed, subject to the trial court’s statutory power under Section 216 Cr.P.C. to alter charges before judgment if required.

Case Details:
Case No.: Crl.M.C Nos. 8624/2018 & 8835/2018
NeutralCitation: 2026:KER:27042
Case Title: Crl.M.C. Nos. 8835 & 8624 of 2018 — Challenging order dated 11.12.2018 in S.C. No. 366 of 2012 of the Principal Sessions Court, Alappuzha
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Shri George Sebastian; Sri Dhanesh Mathew Manjooran (on record in Crl.M.C.8835/2018)
For the Respondent(s): Sri Jayakrishnan U., Additional Director General of Prosecution, Public Prosecutor; Sri Sudheer G., Public Prosecutor

Source: 2026 CaseBase(KER) 177